Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a criminal petition filed by a man, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by his neighbour following a dispute over boundary and cattle trespass. He has been accused of the offences under Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) BNS.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in B.V. Ram Kumar vs. State of Telangana (2025), the Court said, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to Fiona Shrikhande and Mohd. Wajid, has reiterated that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence would not, by itself, constitute intentional insult within the meaning of the provision.”

While noting that the words attributed to the petitioner were “undoubtedly abusive and intemperate”, the Court observed that the complainant failed to disclose further ingredients of Section 352.

“The complaint must disclose the further ingredient that the petitioner intended, or knew it to be likely, that such provocation would cause respondent No.2 to break the public peace or commit any other offence. A reading of the complaint as a whole does not disclose any such factual foundation. There is no allegation that the petitioner intended to provoke respondent No.2 to commit an offence. There is also no specific circumstance pleaded from which such intention or knowledge can reasonably be inferred. The complaint merely proceeds from the alleged use of abusive words to the registration of the offence,” the Court said.

Commenting on the offence of criminal intimidation, the Court said, “Criminal intimidation, as defined under Section 351, requires a threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of the person threatened, or to the person or reputation of one in whom such person is interested, coupled with the requisite intention to cause alarm or to compel the person threatened to do or omit to do an act.”

It observed that in the present case, the petitioner called the second respondent and “threatened him with dire consequences” along with abusive words. However, the complaint failed to set out “specific threat of injury” or the “particular act” which the petitioner intended the second respondent to do or omit to do as a consequence of the alleged threat, the Court said.

“The distinction between an abusive expression and a legally actionable threat cannot be overlooked. Every abusive or offensive statement does not constitute criminal intimidation. The statutory ingredients have to be discernible from the allegations themselves,” Justice Govindaraj said.

The Court added, “An omnibus assertion that the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences, without the necessary particulars or circumstances constituting the threat, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient disclosure of the offence.”

In the present case, the Court also took into account the civil dispute between the parties, stating, “the allegations disclose, at the highest, an altercation arising out of a pre-existing property dispute and the use of abusive and intemperate language in the course thereof.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.